quote:To mark the occasion, a group of analysts who have followed Amtrak's woes over the years will gather in Washington to discuss what critics call Amtrak's "35 years of subsidies, waste and deception."
Amtrak keeps making promises that things would get better, one promise after another," said Joseph Vranich, a former Amtrak spokesman and former member of the Amtrak Reform Council. "But people fall for the promises, and Amtrak survives
...Gunn, fired last November after opposing the Amtrak board on a host of issues, said he believes the board will hire a president who "won't challenge City Hall" and will not block the Bush administration's goal of dismantling Amtrak
Analysts say Amtrak must stop relying on subsidies. Rail routes with low ridership should be cut, new labor rules negotiated and some operations privatized, they say.
Ronald Utt, a transportation analyst with the conservative Heritage Foundation, said Amtrak should look to Japan, Britain and Canada for some ideas.
Mr. Toy Member # 311
posted
I've never been a fan of Joe Vranich, but the article does point to some positive developments.
quote:"Congress has been practicing schizophrenic leadership, trying to give Amtrak tough love, but then giving them the money anyway, but no real clear consensus opinion on how they want Amtrak to change," Ashdown said. "There's never been any real direction given to Amtrak except saying that they have to be more fiscally responsible."
I agree with that 100%. I've been saying for years that Amtrak needs to know where it wants to be 10-20 years from now. 20 year planning is standard practice in highway departments across the country. Without a plan, Congress has nothing to fund, hence the lack of funding.
quote:Hughes said one important thing Amtrak has accomplished was agreeing on a mission statement with its management, board of directors and the Transportation Department. The mission is to provide the country with "safe, reliable intercity passenger service in an economically sound manner that will exceed customer expectations."
I'm not usually impressed with corporate mission statements, and this article only provides a partial quotation of it, but it certainly leans in the right direction.
Gilbert B Norman Member # 1541
posted
CBS Radio News (6AM CT) noted this morning Amtrak's upcoming birthday with commentary to the effect of "it has been a tough year for Amtrak; its President was fired and the Bush administration is threatening to cut off its funding'
delvyrails Member # 4205
posted
Joe V. and the other Am-bashers always offer the route of dismantling Amtrak's long distance trains. Instead, Amtrak needs to find a variety of traffics to add to its existing trains which (a) don't compete with their host freight railroad carriers and (b) increase each train's revenues faster than they increase costs.
Here's a hint: Amtrak already runs one long train which is said to cost about $70 per train mile to operate and to generate about $90. It's Auto Train.
There's a billion dollar market in hauling privately owned automobiles and houshold goods across the nation in vans over the Interstates. It would cost us a lot less diesel fuel if some of this transport were done in existing Amtrak trains behind the passengers.
Perhaps the words "passenger service" in Amtrak's mission need to be replaced by "consumer transportation services".
Gilbert B Norman Member # 1541
posted
Mr. Pawson, household goods are simply considered "freight", and I would think that if Amtrak were to move into that market, even with a requirement that the passengers move on the same train as their HHG's, there would be the same emnity within the freight transportation community as there was when Amtrak chose to "stretch' the definition of 'express' to include almost any non-haz-mat manufactured or processed good.
While I think there are markets about the system, such as Ft Madison-La Junta, Ottumwa-Denver, and Albuquerque-San Bernardino, that could generate a carload or two of autos per train (passengers accomodated in line space), none could ever match the scope of the existing Auto Train. We must remember that concept was set forth by Eugene K Garfield, a man unique in railroad/government circles for his abilities to have 'thought out of the box", who was also quite "connected about town'. If motor carriers of registered autos were to have complained, he had the means to discretely 'quash' such complaints.
I don't think Amtrak management is known for "thinking out of the box', and, after the flop of Midwest-Florida Auto Train service, accordingly has not given much consideration to other passenger/auto carriage routes.
Mike Smith Member # 447
posted
In about 10 years, there will be about 80 million retirees. Do we want all of them on our interstate highways or at the airport, slowly taking their time to travel to see their grandkids and other family members, or do we want them on the train slowly taking their time to travel to see their grandkids?
Your choice, America.
delvyrails Member # 4205
posted
Gilbert, on another website, you've said how at Anmtrak's beginning, your co-workers gave it only a few years to live. They must have thought it a "born loser". But it's still here; its operators did not accept that role. So far, they have adapted Amtrak to suit changing conditions to keep it worth its subsidy in Congress's estimation.
However Amtrak, like all businesses, must continually increase its productivity to survive. In its operating and economic environment, Amtrak's typical 5-to-10-car train with an average load of 180 passengers isn't keeping pace with the increasing scale of freight railroading with its 50-to-120 car trains.
Small Amtrak revenue per train mile allows only about $6 in trackage fees for the freight railroads. Amtrak isn't able to bid enough for the dispatching precedence it needs.
So those short trains should expand toward the current practical limit shown by Amtrak's Southwest Chief and VIA Rail's Canadian, 30 cars. Thirty cars of passengers isn't likely with our dispersed population; so some physically and politically compatible "freight" (or whatever you call it) is indicated to fill out the trains. Look what can result:
1. Payment per mile expands and trains run on time. 2. The amount of federal subsidy per train mile declines, pleasing Congressional friends and placating ideological enemies. 3. Ordinary people, most of whom would not travel Amtrak, find that putting their cars aboard trains saves them time and gas bills. Voters will find long-distance tracks as useful as Interstates again. 4. Possibly most important is getting political support from corporations which might be expected to oppose. Movers of privately owned vehicles and household goods can find savings by using long-distance Amtrak trains instead of labor-intensive vans on the Interstates.
So an intermodal passenger service revolution is possible to match the freight intermodal revolution of three decades ago. Once the dollar savings, time savings, reduced pollution, and decreased use of liquid fuel become apparent, it would be difficult to oppose.
Who wants to do/sponsor/support such a study?
Thanks for allowing me to amplify my statement.
Mr. Toy Member # 311
posted
quote:Originally posted by Mike Smith: In about 10 years, there will be about 80 million retirees. Do we want all of them on our interstate highways or at the airport, slowly taking their time to travel to see their grandkids and other family members, or do we want them on the train slowly taking their time to travel to see their grandkids?
Mike, this correlates with a thought I had several years ago. As the baby boomers get older, I think they'll be more inclined to choose more leisurely forms of transportation. Once they're out of the rat race, they'll be looking to see what they previously passed over as they hurried about.
Lest anyone counter that we shouldn't be subsidizing "tourist trains" I will point out that tourism is one of the nation's largest industries, if not the largest. Giving people efficient, comfortable transportation options, especially with fuel prices more likely to go up than down, is just good for business. ------ P.S. I might mention that the article cited in the original post showed up in my local paper today with the exact same headline.
Mr. Toy Member # 311
posted
quote:Originally posted by Gilbert B Norman: Mr. Pawson, household goods are simply considered "freight", and I would think that if Amtrak were to move into that market, even with a requirement that the passengers move on the same train as their HHG's, there would be the same emnity within the freight transportation community as there was when Amtrak chose to "stretch' the definition of 'express' to include almost any non-haz-mat manufactured or processed good.
Ah, but what if Amtrak and their host railroads got together on this. Like they might say on Sesame Street, what if they cooperate? Is there any reason why Amtrak trains could not tack on a few freight cars that UP or BNSF was contracted to haul? Does the shipper care if the locomotive is UP 4151 or AMTK 119?
Just a radical outside the box thought.
Mike Smith Member # 447
posted
Mr Toy, my counter to the tourist train complaint is: Do you want 80,000,000 retirees out there on the Interstate highway system with all you "normal" people, or do you want those 80,000,000 retirees traveling around our Nation in a "tourist train"?
All 3 of my kids want us on a train, instead of cruising at 60 mph on "their" Highway!
Gilbert B Norman Member # 1541
posted
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Toy: Ah, but what if Amtrak and their host railroads got together on this. Like they might say on Sesame Street, what if they cooperate? Is there any reason why Amtrak trains could not tack on a few freight cars that UP or BNSF was contracted to haul? Does the shipper care if the locomotive is UP 4151 or AMTK 119?
I'll be the first to acknowledge, Mr. Toy, that the Amtrak freight (whoops, Express) initiative "looked good and sounded great". If the train, be it two cars or 200 is going to use that dispatch "slot', why not maximize the "value added' of that slot to the fullest extent possible?.
But with both of us following Amtrak affairs to the extent we do, something was flawed. Operations? we know to what extent the freight operations caused delays, starting the moment #4 would depart LAUPT and it had to make two switch movements to add the 20 or so freight cars.
We further know how capricious Amtrak management can be, "our way or the highway'....not any initiative to 'revenue share"...with the Class I hosts. Further, I guess to "look good at 60 Mass, the program's managers chose to offer "low ball' rates guaranteed to loose $$$$. I realize that was a page out of the Amazon and other etailer's playbook (guess what, I have always rooted for Jeff Bozo), but in government, outside parties have a way of coming in and saying "game over' even when there is still time on the clock.
But most telling to me is that no Class I, even with far greater resources at hand to market the product, has chosen to enter the expedited freight businerss since Amtrak left it.
jgart56 Member # 3968
posted
My I harken back to my equipment point?
Last night pulling out of Chicago Union Station on Metra (soon to go through Clarendon Hills Mr. Norman)I got a good look at a grouping of Superliners and Viewliners. Many of them are taking on the look of gentile shabbiness (both outside and inside). It's time to start replacing Superliners and Low Level cars, but I hear no plans on the part of Amtrak to replace them. Is Amtrak including any kind of replacement program in it's new goals? You can only refurbish a car so many times and I think the end is near for some of this equipment.
Delvyrails, Amtrak would need more car carriers and if they cannot even replace their passenger cars, where on earth will they get the money to buy car carriers?
Of everything, I think equipment is going to be the pinch point for Amtrak in the next few years and that could be the main reason that it disappears (not that I want it to)...they don't have a plan or the money to replace old, worn out equipment.
Sorry to beat this drum again!
delvyrails Member # 4205
posted
Yes, jgart56, new equipment is one of Amtrak's problems; but the present set of Auto Train car carriers comprises Amtrak's newest rolling stock. Their purchase was made easier, no doubt, because of Auto Train's marginal or better profitablity compared to most of the rest of the Amtrak system.
The car carriers just replaced are said to be stored somewhere on the Pacific Coast. Although old (built for Canadian National in the 1950s), some of them probably could be fixed up to start a pilot service attached to an existing Amtrak train somewhere other than Lorton-Sanford. (How about Lorton-DC-Chicago on the Capitol?)
Other freight railroads may be about to retire some auto carriers which Amtrak could obtain at a good price.
Amtrak has enough friends in Congress that such a much-needed innovation could attract money specifically to obtain carrier cars to expand autos-on-trains to an existing route. Recall that even bankrupt railroads were able to obtain new boxcars because they are standard items, the lease for which could always be assigned elsewhere.
Tanner929 Member # 3720
posted
CT's Current Transportation budget is studying having a Commuter Line from Springfield MA to New Haven CT and Providence RI to New Haven as well as a New London to Wooster MA rail line all of these will connect to both Boston and New York City. The states should set up there Rail service and the Feds can get out of the travel business.
earmond Member # 186
posted
Ok, to get to the point of absurdity......
between Boston and Washington there are 9 governmental entities of states, commonwealths or administrative territories. Each pays for its' own railroad, and none wants to cotribute to another state. That'll be 9 different railroads with 8 connecting points at state's borders.
the penn state railroad is running a little behind time because of some delay but the del state railroad, wishing to keep it's slot on the NS leaves before the penn railroad arrives causing a day's delay at the bordertown because no one rides trains anymore and there is only one service per day across their state due to demand.
Or, maybe they really don't want to coordinate their services, because for their constituents, it's better to start all trains at 9am departure from whereever to their destinations. So there is no connecting service. That's 9 railroads, times 8 delays, equals about 96 hr to get from Boston to Washington, What's that about 300 miles?
Western states are bigger, so at least we'll get more mileage for our buck, till we hit the next border crossing
But wait, Arizona does not wish to have trains, there is no state railroad there. So for me to get to Alberqueue, NM from San Diego Ca, I'll have to travel through Nevada, Utah and Colorado. Oh wait Colorado only offers trains between Trinadad and Denver and nothing on it's western side, because demand from it's constituants is not there. So, I really have to go through Wyoming, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas as well, to get to New Mexico. Whew, no wonder no one wants to ride the trains. It's too difficult and there are too many different systems. Just think if there was a gauge change between states, similar to what goes on between France and Spain.
In it's absurdity, the above should illustrate why a national system should exist and maybe some feeding corridors, but take away it's national core focus and it all falls apart.
food for thought.
v/r
sojourner Member # 3134
posted
Mike and Mr Toy, Your point re retirees is one I always make when I phone about Amtrak. And also keep in mind the unfortunately high divorce rate and large number of women traveling solo, who are especially unlikely to drive longer distances by themselves and really appreciate taking trains.
earmond Member # 186
posted
In the tradition of using the absurd to illustrate... Let's talk corridors.
There are statistics, damn statistics and lies, right?
Rather than by mileage, or by densely populated areas, let's call the length of the northeast corridor by how it really grew; because these states lie all in a row between the 4 most politically significant cities in early America when the railroads were first put together; Boston, New Amsterdam (oops, New York) Philadelphia and Washington DC.
OK that's 9 states. So in my example statistic, travel across or through 9 states, at most, makes a corridor. It's been so defined by history.
San Diego Ca to Miami Fl is 8 states, defining the "Sunset Corridor"
Miami to NYC is 10 states, if you include Delaware and Washington DC, (can't ignore DC, there's where our money is) Defining the "Atlantic Corridor". (never mind Delaware) ok 9 states.
Portland Me through Philladelphia, that's 8 states defining the new "northeast corridor"
San Diego to Seattle, well that's only 3 states to define the "Pacific corridor" it'll be cheaper to run, because it's only 3 states.
Seattle to Chicago Ilinois, that's 6 states; ah! another cheap corridor to run. That's the "Northwest corridor."
San Diego/LA to Chicago that's 8 states, defining the "Southwest corridor"
San Francisco to Chicago, that's 7 states defining the "Zephyr Pioneer corridor"
New Orleans to Chicago, that's 5 states and another cheap corridor named the "Central corridor"
New Orleans to Washington that the "Southern corridor" of 8 states
Boston to Chicago that's 7 states, the "Empire Corridor"
And then......... well, the picture's been drawn and my hand is getting tired from typing.
In this absurd example, I could find only 5 states which are not included in a corridor, depending on routing; Delaware, Michigan, (who with a little creative routing could be included in a corridor) South Dakota, Wyoming and Oklahoma.
Maybe funding corridor service is the way to go!
(or was that.... lies, damn lies and then statistics?) v/r
sojourner Member # 3134
posted
I was really peeved when I heard Mineta talking about not having Amtrak service in states that don't pay their own way. What about people in states that do pay their own way who want to go to states that don't? If NE corridor states put lots of cookies in the jar for trains, and lots of people in the NE corridor want long-distance trains to go to, oh, say, Flagstaff or Williams Arizona to visit the Grand Canyon, why shouldn't some of our tax money be used to provide trains to take us there even supposing Arizona is full of people who may not want to invest in the trains? I am an American and a taxpayer and me and a whole mess of other people in the NE Corridor who like using public transportation want to take a train to get there and want our tax money used in that way . . . well, maybe I'm not putting this clearly, but I hope you see what I mean . ..
Mr. Toy Member # 311
posted
Sojourner, you have just explained why Mineta's proposals were DOA on Capitol Hill. Even your typical Congresscritter, not a creature known for in-depth thinking, managed to figure that out.
Tanner929 Member # 3720
posted
Here's a real compromise. If you want to get those 800,000 retires of the road then first don't renew their licences after oh lets say age 76? 80? remember this is the aging population that abandond trains in droves for the freedom and individualism of the open road or the convinience of air travel. I think we are trying to recreate the world that "Their" parents remembered!
train lady Member # 3920
posted
Tanner, to my mind your compromise is a bit twisted. Many of the people on the trains are of the "older generation". Furthermore they are the ones who do not want to drive long distances any more. They are also the ones who have the time to enjoy a train trip. It's the so called younger generation that is in such a hurry to get from here to there. Sorry but your "compromise " makes no sense to me. I do not see what it would accomplish.
Amtrak207 Member # 1307
posted
Happy birthday, anyway. This year it was the usual set of news articles, so it's gotten kind of dull and repetitive to me.
But wait a minute-Viewliners looking old?!? What the heck is wrong with them??? Sure, the paint may be peeling, but when you consider they've worn the same stripes for the past ten years through warm or wintry weather, I'd say that's a fine accomplishment, especially if you've seen 72, 75, 80 (especially 80), 701, 703 (hey, a noser!), 705 (hey, a noser!), 708 or 709 lately. Why is it that we can't get paint to stick to a locomotive for more than two years now?
Anyway, you've got an Amtrak working (trains are running!) with half the maintenance staff of 1997 and you expect shiny paint, that's not going to happen. You wonder why half the coaches and cafes are rolling around with screamin' seventies Technicolor interiors (I love the orange cafe panels) when I'd rather see the wheels be round and the bearings be lubricated and the car end doors work. There are a lot of ever-changing standards they have to meet (FRA, FDA, ADA, m-o-u-s-e) that you can't see, kind of like the first three stages of waste treatment going on before the train reaches its destination.
More to it than it seems. Actually, Amtrak is working on plans for a second order of Viewliners, assuming someday someone's going to pay for it. Those half-century-old baggage and dining and dorm cars won't last forever, and they hardly have enough single-level sleepers to go around with the Cardinal running single-level equipment. The Superliner I and Amfleet II cars are going to have to last a little while longer, and they've done an admirable job to this point. Anybody want to buy or lease a P40?
posted